From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] rewriting paths [was: mv vs cp] In-Reply-To: <20011009062615.25BD719A0A@mail.cse.psu.edu> References: <20011009062615.25BD719A0A@mail.cse.psu.edu> From: Richard Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:19:40 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 032013ba-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Fco.J.Ballesteros writes: >One thing I like in Plan 9 is that by keeping the fs alive, >you can survive crashes on any other machine. The renamefs >would make you more dependent on crashes not happening >in the machine w/ renamefs before it moves everything around. I see your point. In renamefs's defense, I note that most users most of the time are working on their own stuff, not making any chanages to the parts of the network that everyone relies on. If the renamefs is running on your own terminal or cpued to some cpu server, and your working on your own stuff, a crash of the renamefs will not affect the other users. Ie, do not use renamefs when you are adminning the network.